The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-08-09

O1OeI OF Tie OOuTb. duQ 6udb dlbeI d
full hearing such injunction may be
made perpetual.
Mr.. Justice Preston has appointed
Thursday, April 21st, at 10 o'clock a.
m. as the time for the petition to be
heard and for defendant to show cause
why the injunction therein prayed for
should not issue"
By THE CoURT:-We had occasion,
at the January term, 1887, of this
Court, in the case of the HAWAIIAN GA
zETTE, to say that such publications
as appear to have prejudicial effect
upon the rights of parties in cases
pending in the Courts, were punish
able as constructive contempts Of
Court.
Bishop, in Criminal Law, Sec. ZIG
says: According to the general doc
trine, any publication, whether by
parties or strangers, which concerns
a case pending in Court and has
tendency to prejudice the public con
corning its merits, and to corrupt the
administration of Justice, or which re
fleets upon the tribunal or its proceed
ings, or on the parties, the Jurors, the
witnesses or the counsel, may be Wis
tied as contempt"
The publication in question comes
within the principle laid down IN the
GAZETTE case and is fully sustained
by authority,
Stuart VS.. The People, 3 Scam. 395.
The People VS.. Wilson, Ga Ill. 1876.
Tenny's case, % n. II. 1852.
Re Cheltenham and Swansea r. r.
Carriage and Wagon Co., S L. R. Eq.,
Gas. $50.
This last case is on all tours with
the one at bar. The publication in
eTtenso of bill in equity containing
grave charges of fraudulent conduct
on the part of the Directors of the
respondent Company was there held
to be punishable as a contempt.
We concede most fully the right of
citizens and the press to comment
upen, and criticise freely in temperate
language, and without impugning
motives the judgments of the Court
after they have been rendered. But
publications which tend to affect,
hinder or obstruct the administration
of justice while it is in process of ad
ministration are reprehensible. We
quote the following from Odgers on
Libel and SANDER, Sec. A:
The administration of the law, the
verdict of juries, the conduct of suit
ors and their witnesses, are all mat
tiers of lawful comment as soon as the
trial is over. Any comment pending
action is a contempt of Court, by
whomsoever made; it is especially so
where the comment is supplied by one
of the litigants or his solicitor or coun
sell"
1t cannot be said that this publica
ton was an attempt to influence the
mind of the justice who was to hear
the cause. He must have read the
petition before granting the interlo-
cutory order prayed for. The publ
cation, could therefore, have no effect
upon HIM, But it is calculated to
prejudice the public concerning the
merits of the case then pending, and
clearly falls within the rule.
But the publication of the bill was
not accompanied with comments, and
the respondent says he did not intend
any disrespect or contempt of the
Court and believed that the records
of the Court were public and open to
the inspection of all persons, and pub
lished the abstract Of the bill on file
merely as matter of news.
The records of our Court are open
to those of the public who seek for in
formation therefrom respecting their
own concerns. They are not open to
the public to the extent that every
thing on file may be published with
out leave of the Court.
But the case before us is not fla
grant one, and we think the interests
Of justice viii be subserved by order
ing that respondent pay costs.
Ashford and Ashford for the Rule:
f. NJ Hatch for respondent.
Honolulu. June %, 1887.